Posted by Stahlhagen on February 1, 2000 at 11:15:06:
In Reply to: Rangers don't suck (text) posted by Nepenthe(IMM) on February 1, 2000 at 10:04:09:
> I don't think rangers are all that bad. They'd be one of the best classes for someone who was either a newbie or didn't want to be caballed because they're so well-rounded and self-sufficient, but that doesn't mean they can't be dangerous in the hands of the experienced player. I can only think of a few higher level rangers that I would say were in experienced hands since the changes, so any would-be ranger heroes of doom will be blazing their own trail rather than living off the successful tactics of their forefathers. That's both daunting and exciting. > I'll make a few comments that are less vague for your benefit. They come from watching rangers in play and seeing what they forget. Ranger strategy keeps changing as they level -- the method that killed a group of three ten levels back may just get you killed now. Rangers should be camouflaged unless there's a reason for them not to be. Rangers have one of the best weapon selections in the game. Rangers can use scrolls and staves (and have spells!) Rangers have a strong mobility advantage on almost everyone. > Since you ask, Wilderness Familiarity is good. With it, a ranger in his/her domain can compete in pure tanking power with warriors with tanking specs. It's even good for giants.